For a physicist , the hard problem of consciousness sounds indeed crazy. It's a subjective argument (what it feels like) that presents itself as objective. Phys

For a physicist , the hard problem of consciousness sounds indeed crazy. It's a subjective argument (what it feels like) that presents itself as objective. Physicists believe that, if consciousness is some fundamental quantity, then it is subject to the laws of physics. E.g. if it is conserved, what is the fundamental symmetry linked with it? Science generally is objective, not feelings-based. The problem with the physicist's approach is that the philosopher controls the goalposts (the language) and moves them to increasingly absurd distances, usually leading to desperation. > Where she gets that definition from, I can't even begin to fathom. That is literally what Chalmers says about it, that it 's a fundamental property (quantity) in the universe: More likely, we will take experience itself as a fundamental feature of the world, alongside mass, charge, and space-time. If we take experience as fundamental, then we can go about the business of constructing a theory of experience > There's currently zero solid scientific evidence for any theory of consciousness There is a lot of solid evidence about how to manipulate consciousness (in various definitions), how to predict it or suppress it.